Two reasons why I don't have to agree that something is 'offensive'

[Mackay]

1) The works of Andres Serrano

2) The photos of Robert Mapplethorpe

Apparently, if someone is 'offended' by something... according to the vast majority of DUers, I have no right to disagree that the element in question is 'offensive'.

I saw the National Endowment of the Arts budget gutted for a decade because of this type of thinking: 'No one should ever be 'offended'.'

This equates to the same tired line I have seen posted here all the time in response to : 'You don't have the right to decide what is 'offensive' to others.'

Sorry, but that is the same reasoning used by the Religious Right to ban artworks and I just don't buy into it.

So, NO... just because there is a majority of DUers who have the time and the will to browbeat those who have an alternate vision of what is 'offensive', I won't agree.

And I've found that if you disagree with the majority here at DU, you will be subject to the same sort of ad hominem attacks once levelled by the far right at supporters of the NEA.

So, there it is... I am tired of all the people offended by...

The Size of Edwards House
The Word 'Douchebag'
The Word 'Articulate'
'Democrat' as opposed to 'Democratic'
Etc.

If you're upset by a Snickers ad, by all means... boycott the company. (I don't buy their products myself.) I think many people, including myself, responded to the snickers ad controversy because it seems to be a growing trend here: the 'I'm so offended...' threads.

Only one poster responded to my own thread with truly useful information and a link to the video of the players talking about the ad (and the alternate ending). The others either resorted to ad hominem attacks or a lecture about violence against gays and lesbians (which I think most progressives are already well aware of). I found the player videos at the link to be completely disturbing and hateful... especially considering the amount of power sports figures wield over forming the ideas and opinions of young people.

But the original ad which I saw... well, I still think it is just dumb, making fun of homophobes (in the edited version) and not anymore hateful than hundreds of other ads in their treatment of the eldery, overweight people, etc. Off the top of my head, I recently saw an internet ad which I found to be far more overtly 'offensive' and hateful than the snickers' accidental kiss: There was an ad for a gaming consoles with a woman representing each system. One system (Wii) is represented by a skimpily dressed, lithe, young, oversexed female juxtaposed with an older, overweight, overbearing woman wearing glasses. The treatment of both women was so overtly base, sexist and degrading, I was disgusted... and dare I say it, offended.

Sorry, if I was more offended by one ad than the other. This is my own subjective reaction.

It is too easy to be 'offended'. I will say to my fellow Duers, the same thing I would say to someone trying ban the works of Mapplethorpe,

"Don't pretend that by using the words 'offended' and 'offensive', your opinion has any more weight than anyone else's."

[bryant69]

1. I suppose the one distinction you could draw would be that

does the offense play into the possibility of violence. Homosexuals have violence constantly over their heads like the sword of damocles- commercials which normalize homophobia, even really really stupid and banal commercials like this one, serve to sharpen that sword.

Or at least I gather that could be one argument.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Mackay]

8. Cause and Effect argument

This same argument is used against the images of Mapplethorpe... i.e. he 'normalizes' homosexuality... which in their opinion is offensive behaviour.

I don't agree with the argument in either case. People are responsible for their actions.

Reading Mein Kampf won't cause me to shave my head.

[bryant69]

11. No but promoting and encouraging others to read Mein Kampf

Might cause others to shave their heads.

[exlrrp]

330. Mapplethorpe NORMALIZES homosexuality?

Did you ever see his self portraits with the whips sticking out of his ---hole?
If youre saying thats normal homosexuality, I have some gay friends that would take issue with that and as theyre my friends I have to take issue with that also.
Mappelthorpe exhibited his kinkiness well beyond "normal" homosexuality. Whats sad is that many people look at his pictures and define all gays as being that way.

[NashVegas]

362. You Miss the Point

The photo you refer to, without the context of his Flowers series, means nothing.

[sandnsea]

63. The word is denigrate

And it's about the haters who do the humiliating and denigrating.

Artists aren't intendeding to inflict pain on anybody.

That's the difference. We need to stop using victim words like 'offended', and start putting our wrath on the offenders.

[Mackay]

70. You don't know much about art, I guess

In the case of Serrano, it was considered denigration by the 'offended' parties.

[sandnsea]

231. But Serrano didn't

If you focus on the intent, it becomes clear when acts are about a perpetrators desire to demean people. Making an artistic statement doesn't translate to intent to degrade and humiliate. It isn't about being offended at all. That's victim talk.

[MADem]

2. Context is helpful. Maybe provide a link to your thread so we can see

precisely what you're talking about?

This is a fast moving board. What is the Big Cheese on Monday morning is gone and forgotten by Tuesday afternoon.

[Mandate My Ass]

3. having one's personal sensibilities offended is different

from recognizing that a particular minority group is being endangered by someone's free speech.

A more apt analogy might be the right to free speech v. the right to falsely scream "fire!" in a crowded theater. :shrug:

[Dr.Phool]

39. One time I yelled "Theater" at a crowded fire.

Was that OK?

[Mandate My Ass]

50. Hmmmm

Only if it was a gay theater. :crazy:

[sendero]

211. Nobody's rights...

...were threatened, that is as hysterical an argument as the right's insistence that a gay teacher or coach would be "forcing his gay agenda" on the students.

Folks do not have a right to not be offended, thank goodness for that because the religious right lives in a constant state of being offended. As for trying to make the stupid commercial into something bigger, well, that is something the right is always trying to do also.

Be offended all you want, stop buying candy, whatever, but don't expect rational people to follow your lead.

[bicentennial_baby]

4. ...

[jollyreaper2112]

19. oh no you din't!

I'm offended by your depiction of a man beating a dead horse.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[racaulk]

190. .

:spray:

[hippiechick]

5. Thank you.

:applause:

[Maven]

6. Don't try to turn this into a free speech argument.

Thanks.

[bryant69]

9. You don't have to turn it into a free speech argument

It, by definition, already is.

Bryant

[Maven]

15. No, it isn't.

The OP is comparing objections to an advertisement to RWers trying to censor expression like the Mapplethorpe exhibit.

No one here suggested we should pass a law against any type of speech, even in an advertisement. Only that we object to a private company exploiting homophobia to sell something. Totally different.

[bryant69]

29. Fair enough

But it still involves speech - I admit that saying that the Mars company should be ashamed of itself and shouldn't have aired this commercial does not infringe on anybodies Free Speech. On the other hand saying that there should be steps taking to ensure hateful speech such as this is kept out of the publics airwaves would infringe on freedom of speech (perhaps justifiably). And the argument seems to have accommodated both positions.

Bryant

[Maven]

31. Huh?

"saying that there should be steps taking to ensure hateful speech such as this is kept out of the publics airwaves"

Who has said that? Show me where.

Mars pulled the ad themselves because they realized they had fucked up. It reflected poorly on their product. No one contacted the networks and demanded the ad be pulled.

[bryant69]

42. I don't really want to go back and read four days of posts on this subject

If you are sure that nobody has broached the idea of getting FCC involved or taking control of the Public's Airwaves, I'll believe you.

I'd be surprised though.

And of course that's not mentioning the idea of a Boycott, which also has free speech ramifications.

Bryant

[swimboy]

51. I read a shitload of snickers post and never saw a single instance of what you believe was said

So provide some links or take MY word for it. Progressives aren't for censorship. I think it's fine to try to shame people who have behaved badly and the corporations involved are exhibiting that they feel shamed.

People are free to be assholes, and others are free to call them on it. In a civil and evolving society, the assholes will lose ground.

[bryant69]

61. I'm sorry I'm already taking Harvey Korman's word for it

So I can't take yours.

No progressives are for censorship, eh? I wasn't under the impression that all progressives thought the same way.

Bryant

[swimboy]

174. Progressive aren't for censorship does not equal no progressives are for censorship.

If you produce a progressive in favor of censorship it doesn't mean progressives are for censorship. There is a lot of poor reasoning surrounding the snickers bar. I'm not going to buy one. That's not censorship.

I found the ad campaign offensive. That statement does not silence free speech. If I mention to someone who I believe respects me that my feelings are hurt and they say, Oh yeah, well fuck you! then I have to reassess whether or not they respect me.

[Kare]

377. Has anyone considered

The more people have seen that add because of the controversy that it has caused than might have otherwise? I don't watch the superbowl but I have since seen the add because of discussions here and of course on Olberman and on the Daily show.
Free advertising. Mars paid for a huge audience during the superbowl and got an even larger one because of the talk about the adds content.

No such thing as bad publicity and all that...

It might be bad pr but everyone is talking about snickers.

[bettyellen]

62. no one ever said that, this is a totallly manufactured arguement.....

all people were saying was that just because you in particular don;t find it offensive, it doesn;t mean you should tell people they are wrong, to "get over it" that their offense is stupid and baseless. Seriously, most of the posters who said those things, just like the OP has only seen the broadcast commercial, not the other ads. The broadcast commercial was not nearly as bad as the net ones.

[sniffa]

7. you shouLd reaLLy Lighten up on the game consoLe ads

reaLLy, just get over it, and don't be offended.

it's not Like it's contributing to a cuLture of sexism or anything, so get over it.

[Maven]

12. Exactly.

I wonder if the OP is female.

If so, all she's proven is that she was offended by one ad because it directly affected her, and not the other, because it didn't.

Robert Mapplethorpe indeed.

Kick.

[smoogatz]

144. Go get 'em, Harv.

Well argued.

[cynatnite]

10. Sometimes it seems like not being offended by something...

offends people. :shrug:

[TahitiNut]

107. Bizarre, isn't it?

:shrug: ... even if one isn't offended ENOUGH, it seems to offend others. :crazy:

[lumberjack_jeff]

160. Exactly. n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

314. sometimes it seems like a contest. i wonder what's the prize at the end?

:shrug:

[dogday]

13. The use of women in commercials is so rampant

you can't sell toilet paper without seeing some babe in next to nothing selling it...

Am I offended, yes I am, but I am offended worse at the war in Iraq and the needless deaths and suffering...

[Katherine Brengle]

33. Um that's the same argument a lot of people used in the Snickers argument...

that there are other more offensive things that bother them...

That doesn't diminish the impact of the "less" offensive thing...

:eyes:

[dogday]

48. Since my Son has served and probably will

go back to the Iraq war, that is the most offensive thing to me...

Candy bar argument or not...


No it does not diminish my offense at women being used liked toys, but that will have to be put on my back burner of things I can rant about....

[Midlodemocrat]

112. dogday, let's hope we can get them out of there before he has to

go back. I can't imagine what you went through during that time. :hug:

[dogday]

117. Every time the phone rang late at night

early in the morning... A strange knock on the door... Hearing on television 10 more soldiers were killed... One day when a helicopter was brought down, and he happened to be in another one that day really got to me....

Well I think that kind of describes what you go through... I am hoping my hair will grow back, I lost a lot of it while he was gone....

[treestar]

356. This is true

The funny thing is too that an overweight or older woman is constantly told on a daily basis she is useless to society and unattractive to men. It's not even that simple, since married women are included in the audience (but there's the threat of not becoming that way, and at least one of them is inevitable).

On a daily basis, commericials are much more insistently and consistently harder on women. There's so many we don't even notice enough to start multiple threads on DU. We don't even bother to take the time to be offended, or we'd be miserable all the time.

[Little Wing]

14. But you're not gay so your opinion is meaningless

therefore you lost the argument when you pressed the "Post" button

:eyes:

[sniffa]

17. what i wouLdn't give to have that bLock button back

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mackay]

23. VOILA!

Here we have it... the true reigning opinion at DU.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

Oh puh-leeze.

The poor opressed heterosexual.

Let me get you a tissue.

:sarcasm:

[Mackay]

40. VOILA once again...

I'm not opressed enough to have an opinion on this forum apparently.

[sniffa]

43. i feeL so bad for you

:cry:

here you are just trying to express an opinion on forum, and you're not aLLowed to.

:cry:

how wiLL anyone ever get to read your opinion if the buLLies keep siLencing you.

VOILA!!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

46. No one said you couldn't have an opinion. That is just in your head.

We just ask how you can understand how it could be offensive. Also, the larger ad campaign was far more insidious than the Superbowl commercial.

You don't have to be offended. You don't have to understand why it's offensive. You just have to respect that. It's part of being a decent human being.

As a straight person, you don't get to frame what gay people are allowed to be offended by. Similarly, as a white person, I don't get to frame what black people are allowed to be offended by.

[Mackay]

53. We're not conservatives either

So we don't have the right to decide what conservatives are 'offended' by??? Maybe not... but I will have my own opinion about what is 'offensive'.

If you read my post, you will see that I mentioned another member of DU educated me as to the larger campaign which was insidious... I agree on that.

I sincerely think you and the other poster didn't read past the header...

[treestar]

79. Can white people be offended?

Just asking.

Can I be offended by somebody jumping down my throat calling me a racist because I don't agree with them or bring up subject they don't want discussed?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

82. Well, I think if someone's offended by something you should take their word for it.

You don't have a right to determine what people are allowed to be offended by.

[treestar]

86. Well my point was then does it include me?

If I say I am offended by someone calling me a racist, they don't have the right to say I shouldn't be, right?

[ThomCat]

247. At some point you have to take a side.

If one group says they're upset about bigotry, and the other side says they're upset at being called bigots, which group do you want to be on?

A surprising number of people here side with the bigots over and over and over again. x(

[GOTV]

141. Neither do blacks or gays get to determine what I am or am not offended by....

... They make their choices. I make mine.

I do not have to respect their choices. They do not have to respect mine.

Sometimes I'm the crybaby - sometimes you are.

It's not part of being to decent human being to adapt to the sensibilities of every and all subgroups. What's more, it's probably not possible.

[ThomCat]

193. No, you just clearly do not understand oppression

nor do you apparently have any empathy for those who do.

[Bluebear]

319. I got a kick out of that response

[NashVegas]

365. I'm Not Certain You Do Either, Frankly

We are in a period of great social upheaval. Most of the bigotry people speak of is bigotry that was ingrained, institutional, passed down generation to generation.

You think people are supposed to wake up, enlightened in one day? How many gay people go straight from their sexual awakening to being 100% comfortable with being different from the other 90%?

I have been told on DU, I've been told I'm supposed to reserve all of my empathy for gay people and have none whatsoever for straight people still trying to make the transition to a world where everything they've been told that was wrong is now perfectly okay and always was, and if they can't make that adjustment in the demanded time frame ("now") they're scum?

I call that oppressive, as well.

[bettyellen]

99. and some lotion to go with it.....

i have a feeling the OP is about to run out of lotion and tissues....

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maven]

109. Thanks.

This debate needed some lube.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

111. That's what I read.

[Duncan Grant]

139. Says you.

How petty. People are asking for empathy and this thread is what you offer them? Pffft!

[jollyreaper2112]

28. really?

But what if I got my mojo risin'? Mr. Mojo Risin'.

[uppityperson]

35. oh bull puckey

I am whitish, middle aged heterosexual female. My opinion on whether or not "nigger" "queer" "breeder" "cunt" are offensive is meaningless? pshaw.

If you are offended, it is offensive. If I am offended, it is offensive. I can be offended and you not offended, or vice versa, but I will accept and believe the offense is there in either case.

[L A Woman]

87. but what if the snickers ad had gone like this...

A white man is eating a Snickers. A black woman comes along and begins eating the other end of the Snickers. They nearly kiss. The white guy freaks out. "OMG! I almost kissed a BLACK person! I'd better do something white!" And he starts reading the newspaper.

And then what if I (a white woman) informed all African-American DUers that it's just a commercial, they should lighten up and relax because *I* am not offended. I thought it was satire. I thought they were making fun of racism. :eyes:

The bottom line is if you are not gay, you have no earthly idea what it's like, particularly for gay men, to constantly have your manhood challenged, to be beaten or arrested for kissing in public - and then to have commercials that make light of it airing to millions of people during the biggest sporting event in the U.S. - you have NO idea what you are talking about and the fact that you are not offended is absolutely meaningless.

[Mackay]

92. What if ?

What if the nazis had Superman on their side?

One of my favorite old school Saturday night live skits.

[JackRiddler]

354. What if the Snickers commercial

had depicted stormtroopers with baby-kebabs on their bayonets?

What then?

[uppityperson]

106. Of course I cannot know. I think we are on the same side of the issue.

If you are offended, it is offensive. If I am offended, it is offensive. I can be offended and you not offended, or vice versa, but I will accept and believe the offense is there in either case.

I do not need to be offended to accept, to believe that you are offended and that whatever it was was offensive. We do not have to think the same, feel the same, but can accept, be empathetic and work together.

[GOTV]

149. Not the same. Reading the paper is fairly normal....

... those guys in the ad did something ridiculous which almost no one does - rip out their own chest hair - thereby establishing that those guys are wackos.

If the white guy and black girl did something absurdly self destructive to themselves then I'd have the same reaction. Those two racists are idiots as evidenced by the idiotic thing they did to "cleanse" themselves.

[bicentennial_baby]

20. ...

on edit, i was wrong, hehe. :D

[Little Wing]

22. oops, someone just did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=158223&mesg_id=158374

I must be psychic

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Little Wing]

27. oh sniffle sniffle poo

My point's been made and proven already, your comments about it are moot

[sniffa]

32. not reaLLy

you have no point.. EVER!
aLL you do is start shit, and it's been duLy noted in our super top secret gay poLice dossier.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

113. Self deleted

[mondo joe]

45. Hey, even if you are gay your opinion may be labeled meaningless.

I think that for minority groups it's easier to have disagreement in a "safe place" - meaning only with other members of said group.

I've been party to enough issues within the gay community - about outing, or strategy around marriage rights, etc - to know there are often passionate and heated disagreements.

But in a broader community there tends to be a "close the ranks" attitude and a demand for unanimity.

[lumberjack_jeff]

159. Then there's no room for common ground

By this pov, there's no reason for the OP to consider your views.

Personally, I value the views of gays. It's reasonable to expect reciprocity.

I find merit in the OP's point. We appear to have replaced thought, planning and action with discussions of what offends us, and outrage that not everyone shares that outrage.

... and whatever you do, don't call me articulate.

[blonndee]

16. No one said you had to be offended.

That's not the issue at all, and yours is a ridiculous strawman argument. The issue is with the way people who were offended were treated here. Your objection to being "browbeaten" actually went the other way, for the most part. It was many of those who WEREN'T offended who insisted that those who were were "too sensitive" and should "get over it" and engaged in outright ridicule and cruel comments, along with ridiculous polls to "prove" that we were wrong. So do you think THAT kind of "browbeating" is okay, since those engaging in it happen to agree with you?

As for your last sentence, how about, "Don't pretend that because you were not offended, your opinion has any more weight than anyone else's."

[Mackay]

38. The true strawman argument

is the word 'offended'. My point is 'so what'... if everyone comes on DU and argues "I'm offended, agree with me or you're a bigot"... where does that leave us?

Post some useful information on what you're talking about. Just proclaiming the fact you're offended doesn't make me sympathize with you. That is why I used the NEA analogy... this 'I'm offended' argument was the same reasoning used to destroy the program.

As for the ad in question, I said that the links were helpful. But you're never going to persuade anyone merely by being 'offended'.

My opinion doesn't have any more weight than anyone else's... but I also don't come on DU every time I am 'offended' by something either.

As for who engaged in the most browbeating and ridicule, I happen to disagree with you.

[sniffa]

52. and VOILA!!

more useLess garbage, yet insisting others are the strawmen. :eyes:

VOILA!!

[Mackay]

65. Yeah...

you learned to use 'VOILA' from me... I should get a royalty.

[sniffa]

69. VOILA!!

[Mackay]

74. Hey...

I'm counting now.

[blonndee]

90. Please, look up "strawman"

because your post makes it clear that you don't understand what it means, even though you engaged in one at least two more times in this post alone, to wit:

"if everyone comes on DU and argues "I'm offended, agree with me or you're a bigot"...

and "I also don't come on DU every time I am 'offended' by something either."

[Mackay]

102. Applies more to your own post...

1. "Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted"

[blonndee]

103. When did I do that, exactly? Please point it out. Otherwise

please refrain from false characterizations.

[LostinVA]

178. No, blonndee is on point

Good try, though. Say it enough times and maybe you're actually make it true.

[ThomCat]

279. At the very least, he'll believe it's true.

And for some people, that makes it true. :)

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bliss_eternal]

290. self delete...

source response deleted. :)

[jannyk]

26. Well said ...

DU is devolving into a 'pack mentality' and individual thinkers are being pillaried. The most unfortunate aspect is that most of these issues are so inconsequential - most are the media 'topic du jour' - what they serve up to avoid real journalism.

DU has been where I come to be informed and learn the important issues and their background - the information that you don't get from the MSM. Recently, it seems the MSM is driving the topics here and whtever 'lightweight' expose they have decided to waste time on that day is what fills the pages here.

This past couple of weeks it's been more like the 'National Enquirer' and, for the first time ever, I have had to use the 'hide thread' option (a lot!)

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

55. You call them that BECAUSE you know it is offensive

cussing someone out works because you use offensive words, because you know they are offensive. It is when offensive stuff is used and attempted to pass off as inoffensive, that is the problem.

[bicentennial_baby]

57. Man, you're on a roll....not

"Tards", "Pussy", "Dick"...Firing on all cylinders, eh?

:eyes:

[jollyreaper2112]

73. ayup, my V-8 is purring

What are we going to be offended by tonight, Brain?
The same thing we're offended by every night, Pinky. The straight white man's attempt to take over the world!

[Roland99]

30. Hear! Hear!

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maven]

36. Kick.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mackay]

44. Love it :)

How do you post pics?

[jollyreaper2112]

78. wtf?

So, you've got some dude sticking a whip up his ass. Which side of the argument are you on here and what sort of point are you trying to make? I've seen gay erotica, even gay male erotica. My sister just had to go in the gay bookstores when we were in DuPont Circle. So I know that it can be done tastefully. So what are you getting at here, that there are some gays who lack any sense of fashion or taste? Are we trying to break stereotypes here?

[GOTV]

169. It's a mapplethorpe, a reference from the OP n/t

[bettyellen]

47. but you do agree the campaign was offensive! LOL , you just posted before you had a fucking clue

which in the end, is the most offensive part of all. Spouting off cluelessly....
telling people to get over it when you had no idea what "it" was.
Shame on you :spank:

[Midlodemocrat]

58. Whole lot of cluelessness going on, bettyellen.

:hi:

Good to see you!

[ScreamingMeemie]

54. What you see as the growing "trend" of "I'm so offended" I see as

more people realizing that this IS important. That human rights and equal rights happen NOW. Not later.

Thank you.

[Midlodemocrat]

56. I'm worried about my white, middle aged, high earning husband. I fear he's being oppressed.

Oh, no, wait. He's not. Because he's

1. White
2. Heterosexual
3. College educated by virtue of the fact that he was born to white, heterosexual middle class parents.

And the difference between what you stated about art being 'offensive to some' is light years away from the discrimination gays in this country feel every. single. fucking. day.

And, your opinion on the ad, frankly, really doesn't matter. Because regardless whether that ad is run or not, YOUR rights aren't being abridged.

Do you get it now?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

66. Yes, because Midlo has such a closed world view.

:eyes:

[Midlodemocrat]

68. Apparently.

WOnder if the OP went to the Naval Academy?


:rofl:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

75. That's an insult to the Naval Academy.

I think we're dealing with Technical School dropout.

:rofl:

[Midlodemocrat]

67. Yeah.

That big salary of his gives him the right to be oppressed.

And, frankly, he loves living with someone who is as compassionate as I am.

[Mandate My Ass]

71. Nice ad hominem

:thumbsdown:

[sniffa]

60. no, and she's choosing not to

and for that....

VOILA!!

[spoony]

177. I'm all three of those and

I'm not exactly swimming in champagne here. Is my opinion still meaningless?

What can a WASP do to get any credibility at all with you? Just agree with you mindlessly?

[Midlodemocrat]

216. You can hold any opinion you want.

The point is not to tell the members of the GLBT community to 'get over it', when they indicate that they find something homophobic.

I don't get to declare what's racist or not, either, because I'm white.

Do you see?

[demrabble]

64. I Bet There Are Things That Offend YOU

I bet there are plenty of things that are quite offensive to you.

I bet that you even feel passionately about some of the things that offend you -- so passionately, in fact, that you might be inclined to write about your feelings on a public board.

And I bet that you would not appreciate others telling YOU not to be offended.

YOUR feelings are YOUR feelings, and you are entitled to them.

Why can't you let other people express their feelings?

[Midlodemocrat]

72. Silly. HE is the only one who gets to decide what is offensive.

Don't you get it? He's not gay, and the fact that the GLBT community, pretty much all over the country declared the campaign homophobic, so much so that Mars pulled it, doesn't matter.

HE gets to decide. Not them.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

80. I, for one, am glad that straight men have taken initiative on this matter.

This way, I don't have to worry my pretty little mind. I like it when people tell me what to think. That's why I only watch Fox News.

[demrabble]

81. Well, He Offends Me

Well, then, I am now offended.

He has deeply offended me because he thinks that he gets to decide what is offensive.

[Mackay]

98. Good

Now you truly belong here... gotta stay 'offended'.

[demrabble]

100. What an Offensive Thing To Say

You're glad that I'm offended?

You're glad the you said something that offended me?

What an offensive thing to say.

[Mackay]

104. Yeah...

you belong. Thanks are in order.

[Beelzebud]

77. Yesterday someone said they "questioned my humanity" based on the Snickers ad...

I think that is the type of thing the OP is getting at.

I never told anyone not to be offended, but when I articulated how I saw the commercial; as a slam on homophobes, I was attacked by a few people for it. When someone questions your humanity over a subjective advertisement, it's gone beyond people simply expressing their feelings.

[sniffa]

148. yeah, that's what she said

Let's see if the exchange is stiLL around.

[Mackay]

89. Sure... I'm offended by many things...

I got pulled into watching the Snickers ad from the free publicity on this board however... and I didn't appreciate that.

Then when I saw the ad and originally posted saying that all of the threads were free publicity for Snickers.

Snickers may be pulling the ad, but they got what they wanted. In the end, it is all about making 'Snickers' the first word people think of when they think candy bar. They can now play the role of the sensitive corporation by having pulled their ad. In the context of their having already asked if the ad is offensive, being told by GLAAD it was and then running it anyway... it would seem that they realize it is more important to make a fuss and then plead forgiveness.

Frankly, I think the 'offended' people played right into their hands.

[treestar]

96. You can, but you probably won't persuade anyone by just

expressing your feelings.

In fact, it has a bit of a counter-effect and drags a person a little farther away from your position.

And not everyone is a liberal democrat, so in the process of trying to get votes, it is better to take into consideration that some of this turns middle of the road voters off and gives the freepers something to point fingers at.

[Maven]

76. I propose changing the rules on DU. Call it the "Right to Offend Act"

Or maybe all the poor, censored people chiming in can find a more appropriate Orwellian name for it, like the Restoration of Expressive Freedom Act. Details.

Anyway, the rules change would go something like this:

(1) Any poster on DU can use any word they like to describe a particular minority, as an epithet in heated conversation, or just to be funny.

(2) Any poster may opine about issues of race, gender, or sexual orientation without any regard or sensitivity to the group at issue.

What do you think. You think the admins would go for it?

[jollyreaper2112]

85. oh, I know!

How about the DU Get a Spine Act*

(1) Know that not everyone is going to agree with everyone else

(2) That there will be a reaosnable amount of disagreement and friction

(3) Civility is the lubricant that keeps the friction in line

(4) That mod action is called for only when the civility lubricant can no longer handle the situation and the temp is approaching the redline

(5) When you choose to get offended over little shit, YOU are the one not applying the proper civility (lube) and thus your reaction is part of the problem, not the solution

*No offense intended to our invertibrate brothers/sisters/itlings. We are not trying to promote the notochordocentric agenda. I would have suggested getting a thicker skin but that would also draw ire from the dermatologically challenged community.

[Maven]

88. So far all I've seen you do is push buttons to get a rise out of people

When you actually contribute something to the discussion that merits civility and reasoned response, let me know. Until then, play with your lube.

[treestar]

93. Isn't that a bit offensive?

It is a direct personal attack.

The OP has a right to be offended. And by the one sided standard then, no one can argue against that.

[Maven]

94. I wouldn't dream of it. nt

[blonndee]

95. Funny how

so many talk about "civility" and yet fail to think it's something they themselves ought to strive for, huh? (Obviously I'm not talking about you, Harvey...)

[jollyreaper2112]

127. You must have read all my posts

You've read every post I'eve ever made so that you can pass that judgment, that I've contributed nothing to the discussion on DU, not here, not anywhere, right? Obviously you must have since you've formed your opinion already.

Help me out here, I'm looking for a gender/sexual neutral phrase here. It means "drama queen" but not because someone is female or gay, just that they want to stir up some huge shitstorm over nothing, like Christians with the whole war on Christmas thing. I can't think of anything good. I'll just have to settle for "drama royalty."

You know why I don't think the Snickers commercial was anti-gay? Because it seems to me that the people being made out to look like idiots were the straight white guys. They're the ones that had to completely freak out at the slightest whiff of swish in the air. "ZOMG TEH GHEY IS AROUND! DO SOMETHING MANLY!" They look like morons. I worked at a restaurant with this Italian guy who was totally into the stud het thing. "Hey, babe, got any Italian in ya? Want some?" Class act. So a football game is on TV and it's a slow night. I decide to start fucking with his head. "You know, it's interesting how football, despite all the beer and hollering, is simply a means of sublimating latent homoerotic tension in today's society." He looks at me. "homowhat? What's homo?" So I say "Well think about it. Where else in society is it acceptable to touch another man in any way but a handshake, to hug, but heads, slap each other on the butt? Where else but a locker room could dozens of muscular, virile men be naked together without having anyone queer to the notion, pardon the pun?" He looks worried. "What are you saying, man?" I shake my head. "Isn't it obvious? These men are mostly heterosexual but they have a latent interest in what it's like on the other side, a desire to taste hidden fruits, no pun intended. But society prevents this kind of exploration, experimentation. Theirs is a desire that can never be spoken, never fulfilled, but they can at least spend some of the energy worked up by these subconscious desires by entering into a ritualized combat on the gridiron. It is a brutal, savage parody of lovemaking, bodies clashing together, collapsing in tangled piles of flesh pressed close together. But because this is all in the name of sports it can be overlooked. And if you think football is bad, just look at professional wrestling. You'll never see that many shaved, glistening torsoes outside a gay dance club." He was almost buying it. "Shut up, man! Just shut up! Leave my football alone!"

[Maven]

134. Great. You saw nothing wrong with the ad.

I, and many others, did.

What's so difficult about that for you?

[Name removed]

306. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maven]

307. Gosh, we're so lucky to have you.

Glad that image was fresh in your mind, btw. What a great way to make your point.

WTF has happened to DU?

Kick.

[ThomCat]

311. Yes, unlike the freeper

he'd just stand by and watch us get tied up with barbed wire to a fence. :eyes:

[ScreamingMeemie]

308. It becomes painfully apparent, jollyreaper, both here and on your

new attention getting thread, that you care only to disrupt, draw attention to yourself, and slam on others. In other words, you don't appear to play very nice. Given this type of behavior, it shouldn't be too surprising to find yourself in the predicament that you are in currently.

[bliss_eternal]

309. How graphic...!

:puke:

How is it you're so "in tune" with what a Freeper may or may not do?

[LostinVA]

320. We're on the same wavelength here, bliss

[ThomCat]

310. Polite disagreements are great when the issue is trivial

or when there are many good answers. Buy in issues of discrimination and prejudice it's usually clear cut. Either you support equal rights, or you don't. I have a hard time accepting people who claim to be progressives who treat civil rights as if they are trivial.

[treestar]

91. Offense has two sides to it, though

Some people are more sensitive than others and some people offend without meaning to.

It gets tiring walking on egg shells, which is what you have with the one sided rule that the offendee is the only one that matters. They could say they are offended over anything I said.

I am offended by people being offended at what I said.

[TahitiNut]

119. I'm offended that you're offended by people being offended at what you said.

:crazy: ... so that means it's OFFENSIVE!?!? :silly: :dunce: :crazy:

[jollyreaper2112]

131. that's it

I can't believe how offensive that was, you insensitive clod!

(the clod thing is a running joke on slashdot. Has it made it over here yet?)

[TahitiNut]

171. Rare is the DUer who even knows what slashdot is.

:smoke:

[jollyreaper2112]

305. heh

Guess it's a good thing I referenced it then. ;)

[treestar]

83. We need to be more positive

Find a TV show that shows a gay character sympathetically and support that TV show. We're too focused towards protesting the negative on culture war issues like this.

That would be a much more effective way to deal with it. Being offended and making a big deal plays right into the hands of the freepers, they always win on that issue, because nobody wants to think they can so easily offend (well, except the most freepersh of the freepers, but then they see weakness they think they can exploit where people take that victim line).

[Sapere aude]

84. So far I haven't read the replies to your post. I agree with you 100%

This will be a learning experience for me. I will now read the other replies and see if you are attacked or not. I will edit this for more comment.

But for now, I would like to say that I have seen on DU for about 6 years the forming of a sort of DU platform like a political platform and those not conforming are intimidated. So much so that to say they are intimidated invites further intimidation.

That is the biggest negative about this board.

On edit, the responses are pretty much the same as the ones yesterday. Some agree and others don't.

What really gets to me is that certain people feel because of their position they are the one and only ones to decide how we are to feel about the commercial. They are offended so we all should be. Just as you stated. And if we were not offended we are somehow lacking.

That's the way it is and has always been.

[rzr77]

97. The predator/prey power dynamic makes all the difference.

In most cases, "offensive" is ethically and morally wrong if it is used to bully and intimidate a clearly powerless individual or group.

To paraphrase Molly Ivins, "it's like kicking a handicapped person."

The reverse is usually true if the powerless are being "offensive" to rebel against the powerful. Then it is simply "david" slinging rocks at "goliath".

[treestar]

101. That gives a group a privilege to offend others of another group

just on a ground of birth, though.

Or a ground on which people ought to be able to make their choice.

It just doesn't work, because it is group treatment, not just to individuals. There are white straight men in the world, and they can't have to walk on eggshells talking to everyone else. Naturally they are going to feel this injustice. Not every white straight man is rich and privileged and when you attack his group, naturally he's going to defend himself as an individual.

It promotes ill will and a sort of "we're this in-crowd" mentality that has negative consequences only, and including to the group "offended."

[rzr77]

122. Very good point. This is why these matters are so complex.

It can and usually does turn into a sort of "reverse" bullying.

This is why all types of speech have to be protected, because much of the time it's too hard to clearly discern who is predator and prey, better if all sides have their say and let it all work itself out.

But there are clearly times when "offensive" is bullying, and in those clear cases it makes sense to regulate (not eliminate) it.

[Morgana LaFey]

108. You know, I have a "friend" (sorta friend) who told me the other day

when I mentioned something about sexism, that SHE had never really felt that discriminated against, and meant basically in her whole life, and basically that meant the subject I'd brought up was of no interest to her.

I thought to myself later: How fucking REPUBLICAN of her (and she is a Republican): "I've got mine (I had no problems), so screw everyone else." If she doesn't realize that sexism is alive and well and a BIG problem for all the world's women, I basically don't have much room in my life for her, I don't think.

And I bring this little story up because your comments remind me of the same reaction I had: How REPUBLICAN of you. I'm not allowed to CALL you a Republican and indeed I am not. But your attitude is certainly typical of Republican thought, nonetheless.

YOU don't have the right to tell OTHERS that they shouldn't be offended by this or that either, all the more esp. if you claim OTHERS have no right to tell YOU you should be offended.

(What is it? Something in the water? I sure seem to be running across the posters today claiming rights for themselves they are categorically denying for others. Whew! It's an epidmic.)

[blonndee]

110. Well said and I would add

not only do some posters claim rights for themselves that they categorically deny for others, but they project upon others the very negative attitudes and behaviors that they themselves hold and engage in. Sick-ass, republicanesque way of thinking indeed.

[Mackay]

116. Slick

Agree or you're a Republican...

Oh, so sophisticated... and you're the one claiming to teach others about straw man arguments?

[blonndee]

120. Oh, that's what I said? "Agree or you're a Republican"?

I'm talking about cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.

Edited to add: Here's what the fuck I said. YOU TELL ME where I even implied that one has to agree with me or they're a Republican:

"Well said and I would add
not only do some posters claim rights for themselves that they categorically deny for others, but they project upon others the very negative attitudes and behaviors that they themselves hold and engage in. Sick-ass, republicanesque way of thinking indeed."

[Mackay]

124. LOL

"Sick-ass, republicanesque way of thinking indeed."

Sure, nothing of the sort...

[Name removed]

128. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mackay]

114. Same claims the Religious Right make...

I have no right to my opinion about what is offensive or not...

The epidemic here is the people who are unable to say anything but "I'm offended... you have no rights but to agree with me."

[blonndee]

115. Who was it again who said you had no right to your opinion?

Again, please point to those posts. If it's such an epidemic, they should be plentiful and easy to find. Thanks!

[bettyellen]

125. no one said it, this is one of those shared delusion thingies, OP needs to feel persected

wants to feel persecuted, wold love to feel persecuted.
I believe they're a bit jealous of all the spankings given out to the homosexuals here and are desperate for a bit of the same.
At least, they were the other night.

[Mackay]

129. Help I have a "delsion thingie"

I'm "persected"

[bettyellen]

133. my u is unstuck now, thanks, is your ass still red from the other night?

i see you're moved to post more shit that will get you humiliated. again.
tell me, do you also do the human furniture thingey? if so, I know a few people who'd be willing to set their drinks on your bony arse.

[Mackay]

135. do you have an 'ey' key on your computer

LOL

[bettyellen]

150. i knew that would delight you

there's no way you believe any of the nonsense you've posted here. no one's that stupid.

[blonndee]

152. I beg to differ.

There are SOME who really are.

[Mackay]

154. When losing an argument

Rule 1

Gang up with other posters losing their as well... there is safety in numbers.

[blonndee]

156. How are you "winning," exactly? You can't answer

a single question with effective evidence and/or without resorting to fallacious accusations. Yeah, that's "winning" an argument! :rofl:

[swimboy]

176. Oh for fux sake

There is a lot of poor reasoning surrounding the snickers bar. I'm not going to buy one. That's not censorship.

I found the ad campaign offensive. That statement does not silence free speech. If I mention to someone who I believe respects me that my feelings are hurt and they say, Oh yeah, well fuck you! then I have to reassess whether or not they respect me.

[Mackay]

185. Never claimed censorship

In fact I think people should boycott snickers. And they should continue the boycott because the ad was obviously made to get a rise out of the community.

No one bothers to read the post...

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

126. *crickets*

[Mackay]

140. Well as I SAID

The Religious Right says so regarding works which they are offended by,

But if you’re looking for DUers… different perspective, same dogma:

File them under… posts such as

57

Or ridicule such as 100 and 106
(Note how selective the mods can be about what is acceptable, and what is not. )

ETC. ETC. ETC.

To sum up my own feelings, basically GOTV says it best in post 131

[blonndee]

145. Which of those says you don't have a right to your opinion?

And I'd hardly start moaning about "ridicule" if I were you.

[Bluebear]

118. Epedemic? Can I ask when you visited this forum before Snickers?

Seriously. You have 500 posts over five years, do you just lurk, and if so, what about this topic has brought about such passion in you?

[sniffa]

143. hmmm

:think:

[Mackay]

192. Why?

Do you work for the department of Homeland Security? You'd be good there.

[mentalsolstice]

121. You don't have to be offended

You're simply asked to respect the feelings of those who are offended, and not tell them to "lighten up". Most of the threads that I've read from those who were offended by the Snickers ad campaign did not require that others be as offended as they were. Most of their original anger was at Mars, Inc. The problem comes in where those that weren't offended had to jump in and try to demean those who were.

I don't understand why, when two (or more) people are discussing something they were offended about, other people have to jump in and say they weren't...why not simply stay out of the conversation?

Frankly, I'm not going to dive in here and say whether I was offended or not, but I do respect why the ads are offensive to the LGBT group here at DU, and I'm not going to minimize those feelings

[jonnyblitz]

137. great post!!

the intensity of the people going after those of us "uppity" homos who are offended is an interesting thing to observe. most of the new threads on this topic are from those lashing out at us who are offended, it seems. "We" would have moved on to other topics by now but for some reason "they" can't let this rest. something else is going on here.

[Maven]

142. Exactly.

The whole topic would have been dropped by now.

Something else is going on here--people resenting us for speaking up in the first place.

[blonndee]

146. You'd almost think...

nah, surely not.

[mentalsolstice]

153. Even though we have the freedom to express ourselves

Even though we have the freedom to express ourselves, I think "most" of us realize there has to be some self-censorship so that we can enjoy a civilized society. I think with the internet and message boards such as this, we can see the situational break-down of civilized discourse, probably because of the anonymity factor. Imagine if we communicated to others like this in real life? Oh wait! Sometimes we do, such as can be seen in hate crimes, cross burnings, and so forth.

[swimboy]

167. Excellent post! The concise heart of the matter!

Thank you!

[LostinVA]

326. Excellent post, MS

And, *gasp* you're STRAIGHT. Why, I thought only thin-skinned gays are supposed to post stuff like this???

Seriously -- Thanks. And a *HUGEHUG*.

[Skittles]

402. I wonder why people cannot understand that, mentalsolstice

I'm fed up with people say THEY are fed up with people being offended - it's egotism at its worst

[Bluebear]

406. A wonderful post, mentalsolstice. nt

[donco6]

123. So you believe the offended homophobes have just . . .

. . . as valid a complaint as gays do, for the portrayal in the ad?

Pfft.

[GOTV]

130. I Agree. I can make my own choices about what's offensive...

... and I certainly can decide for myself is someone or some group is being overly sensitive. And I can do so without putting myself in the same category at people who beat or kill members of minorities.

All the posts that say otherwise are absurd IMO.

Oh and yes, I can make my own determinations as to what I find absurd as well.

[Mythsaje]

132. I decided quite some time ago

that there were certain subjects on DU that I would not address.

I don't discuss reproductive rights.

I will not discuss rape cases.

I will not discuss gay rights.


Regarding each of these issues, I have been told, in no uncertain terms, that if I am not myself one of those directly affected by the issue, I have no right to an opinion. I am not a woman, so the reproductive rights of women is none of my concern. I am not a woman, or a victim of rape, so any argument that we should perhaps wait before passing judgement on accused rapists is indicative of tacit support for rapists. I am not gay, so my support for gay rights, though occasionally tempered with a dose of realistic expectations, is unnecessary.

I refuse to be insulted by people to whom I would ordinarily give my support. I will not tolerate being called sexist or a homophobe just because I disagree with a certain stance held by a certain group of people on a fucking message board.

I have not seen this Snickers commercial, and will not seek it out. It clearly has nothing to do with me, as I'm neither gay nor a homophobe, and my opinion would most likely not be appreciated regardless.

In the meantime, I will donate money or vocally support Planned Parenthood and other such institutions, I will treat any rape victims I encounter with compassion and understanding, and I will sign any petition promoting gay rights, and give my support to any corporation that promotes gay rights.

What I will NOT do is stand around waiting to be insulted by people who don't believe I'm conforming to their idea of what I should be, say, or do.

[IronLionZion]

138. Excellent post Mythsaje!

:hi:

[druidity33]

266. spot on! nt

[JackRiddler]

361. Amen!

[IronLionZion]

136. Mackay has the right to post this, the offended have the right to post theirs,

Mars has the right to show their Snickers ad, and we all have the right to express our feelings the only way a company will understand--with our purchasing power. Each and every one of us has the right to boycott Mars products or purchase them if we so choose. We have the right to write letters/emails to whoever to complain about it and we have the right to post on this message board and talk about it.

As long as we're at it, I support the right of the KKK to speak and demonstrate even though they would gladly lynch me if given the chance. And I strongly support the right of Mike Rogers of BlogActive to out the hypocrisy of self-hating gay homophobes who actively suppress the rights of gay people.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have too much freedom than not enough. Bush and his neocon corporate-fascists want to put limits on our freedom of speech. I for one, don't want to go down the slippery slope towards totalitarianism. I enjoy my rights. I enjoy my right to view the ad or change the channel if I choose. I have the right to be offended. I have the right to decide for myself what I'm going to do and my choice is to NOT beat up any homosexuals or anyone else for any reason. That's pro-choice, liberal, and libertarian.

I think I'll go have a Hershey's special dark chocolate today. (Which I would do anyway since it tastes good and I'm Pennsylvanian.) I value my right to make that purchasing decision.

And YOU have the right to flame me if you disagree. But then who is promoting hate? Consider how fortunate you are that you have the right to think about this and say what's on your mind. If controversial stuff like this didn't happen, what would we have to talk about? the war? I'm sick of the war.

Now you have the right to have a nice day! ;-)

[DaveJ]

147. Isn't this ironic

You're offended that they are offended by your lack of being offended. Why not just accept the fact that they are offended by your lack of being offended and leave it at that? Now they are going to be offended that you are offended that they are offended by your lack of being offended. Someone PLEASE stop the cycle! Why don't we all just arm wrestle? :spank:

[Mackay]

151. Not offended

Just pointing out this is the same word which allowed the Religious Right to hamstring the NEA.

Just about everybody is ignoring that... how conveeeeeenient

[Maven]

155. No, I pointed it out earlier that it was a false comparison.

But you didn't address that. How convenient.

[Mackay]

180. Sure you did ;)

Here is the full text of your argument.

“Don’t try to turn this into a free speech argument – Thanks.”

Wow, you really had the last word there… even Cicero couldn’t debate like that. Why should I feel obliged to respond?

My position is that ‘offended’ and ‘offensive’ are words which always boil down to free speech, that is if you agree with the principle. Unlike yourself, I pointed to the real world consequences of putting too much stock in these words.

I realize a lot of people here would find it convenient to be able to turn it on and off as they like, but so would the religious right.

[Maven]

189. So, either you're being lazy, or disingenuous.

You'll notice there was a reply to that post and several replies thereafter.

The distinction is fully explained for you. No one is censoring you or anyone else, so ratchet down the rhetoric.

[Mackay]

194. Why should I necessarily respond

to your responses to other member's posts? If you want to have a side argument with someone, so be it. It's called a web forum.

And since you are mentioning laziness, why don't you read my own side argument with another poster where I pointed out that I never claimed censorship?

[Maven]

199. You can't respond.

Because the comparison is false.

You compare expressing objection to a company that promotes intolerance--i.e., exercising our personal freedom--to RWers who try to strongarm the NEA to silence artists, stifling their personal freedom. See the difference? Exercising freedom, stifling freedom. If you don't want to participate in expressing objection to said company, through boycott or other means, then DON'T. That's YOUR personal freedom. And if we want to object to a company that perpetuates homophobia, either verbally or by not buying their products, that's OUR personal freedom.

But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is basically just you saying, "I don't care, so STFU." It's the same resentment to our having spoken up in the first place that we've seen for days--only this time couched in contrived notions of preserving freedom of expression. The fact is, what you really want is for US not to exercise our freedom of expression.

Here's a tip: next time you see a thread expressing "offense" at something you don't particularly care about, DON'T CLICK. Problem solved.

And if it'll make you feel better, go out and buy a Snickers bar.

[JackRiddler]

369. This is an Internet debate board.

Here's a tip: next time you see a thread expressing "offense" at something you don't particularly care about, DON'T CLICK. Problem solved.

Threads by definition are invitations to public discussion.

This is not society. Every member here has the persona of an electronic account holder -- equally empowered or powerless -- and the only "unfair" means of establishing hierarchy is that some are more effective or prolific writer-debaters (or sophists) than others.

By that measure, you are a member of the dominant class.

So here's another tip: Next time you want to post a pronouncement to which no one can respond, put it up on a website or use a mass e-mail server with blind copy. Then you can have the one-way, top-down, clean communication you seem to fervently desire.

If you prefer to reach the 100,000 members of DU, know that they come here because every message posted has a "reply" button attached to it.

[Maven]

374. Maybe you should explain that to the fucking OP

Who's trying to compare this whole episode to RWers stifling artistic expression in society.

But of course you just wanted to chime in because you're one of the know-it-alls who resented us speaking up in the first place.

Now get the fuck OUT OF MY FACE unless you have something useful to say.

[DaveJ]

158. The NEA is one thing

I hope you aren't equating this commercial with art. This is something being done by a mega corporation that has no regard for people whatsoever.

Would you support age, sexual, and gender discrimination in the workplace, in the name of freedom of corporate executives to control the masses as well?

Again the NEA has nothing to do with it.

[Mackay]

162. Real word consequences to the word 'offended'

Speaking merely to the word 'offended' and how if everyone is to kowtow to every person who is 'offended'...

yes, unfortunately, there are real world consequences. It is not hyperbole... it actually happened.

It is easy to defend one instance and condemn the other because one is an ad and another is art.

However, the same slippery slope exists with pornography and art too.

"Would you support age, sexual, and gender discrimination in the workplace, in the name of freedom of corporate executives to control the masses as well?"

What a deliberately leading question... what do think the answer is? I couldn't possibly have a progressive agenda which varies from your own?

[DaveJ]

170. Sure you can

You can be progressive in any way you want. But being progressive is useless if you are not inclusive. If it's okay to discriminate against certain people, or not speak up against discrimination, progressiveness becomes unbalanced. That's just my humble opinion.

Anyway thanks for drawing my attention to how loaded the word 'offended' is. I never thought of it that way.

[mentalsolstice]

181. What if we didn't have "offended"

Your comparison of the NEA to the Snickers ad is apples and oranges. In the former case we're talking about a class of citizens being maligned.

Speaking merely to the word 'offended' and how if everyone is to kowtow to every person who is 'offended'... However, in this case your talking about a very large group who were offended as the ad campaign implied that their lives and the way they live them are less than desirable. What if African Americans had not spoken up to say they were offended about segregation, etc.? And white people told them that they weren't offended by segregation, so "lighten up"? Oh wait, white people did say that! My point is, from the statement of offense, comes action.

[ThomCat]

336. That point has been mentioned, and ignored.

Head, meet brick wall. Repeat.
:grr:

Some people just don't give a damn about anything that doesn't directly affect them, and they obviously think that only their concerns are important.

[treestar]

251. It is amazing how quickly that point got lost

It is a pretty good point, too.

The fundies are offended by a lot of things. They are offended by the concept of gay rights. Yet the same people taking that line would do a flip flop on the fundies' right to be offended? Or assert that no one should dare tell the fundies they are wrong if they are offended.

Being offended is just a fact, the issue is at what level do you just let it pass? We can't have a full out protest everytime we are offended.

[ThomCat]

254. Funny that it's always straight people telling us

to "just let it pass." Just like white people tell black people to "just let it pass." And non-disabled people tell those of us with disabilities to "just let it pass."

"Just let it pass" is a real good way for the majority to promote inequality and prejudice.

"Just put up with it. I don't think it's a big deal, so you shouldn't either." Yeah, that's easy to say when you aren't affected.
x(

[treestar]

259. No, no, the point is at what level do you let it pass

The offense may be serious or minor but when is it minor enough to let it go because it's not worth confronting people about? There must be a line somewhere.

I've let an awful lot pass on my issues. It can be done. You feel better yourself. Mainly do it for you. I can't afford to feel offended every day, yet I could easily pick things out on DU to be offended by, or ads on TV daily to be offended by.

[ThomCat]

260. The line is wherever we notice the prejudice.

If we set some arbitrary line, straight people like you are going to insist on pushing that line farther away. "Let it pass, it's not serious enough." And the farther than line gets pushed away, the harder it is to fight for equality. And those those same people who push that line farther away swear, SWEAR, that they're not bigots and that they're supporting our efforts towards civil rights.

If we see prejudice, if we notice that we're being singled out and targetted then we need to say something and be serious about it. I don't care how minor it is. Because if we don't, then we're drawing that line for you. And I won't let you push it away.

We fight too hard for each advance towards civil rights to let complacent straight people claim to be our allies while making it harder for us.

[treestar]

262. that does not have to be

Once you have gay marriage, you could still see ads like that. If you take it that you have to fight absolutely everything no matter how small, you'll be fighting all the time and in a counterproductive way, too.

If I let myself get miserable over every show of male "privilege" I'd be in a tizzy every day. I wouldn't have time to support any other cause. We'd all retreat to our own little corners. And only a gay, disabled, minority woman could live without some sort of complacency accusation. Or, not, each of her groups would accuse her of spending too much time on the others.

[ThomCat]

267. It's the straight people who insist on defending prejudice

who are being counterproductive. It's the straight people who say "that's not prejudiced ENOUGH" who enable prejudice by saying that some certain amount is acceptable and should be overlooked.

I don't think we should get miserable about it, and we shouldn't always get mad. Sometimes dispashionate action works well. But we can never ignore prejudice. Silence = approval.

We do whatever we can do whenever we can do it. And whenever our supposed allies tell us to do less, we ignore them. Because allies who tell us to do less aren't our allies.

[JackRiddler]

370. Any time gay people relativize the significance of The Snickers Ad...

A certain gang of divine-right moral authorities calls them liars, rationalizes it as internalized hatred or the result of intimidation, and gives each other moral high-fives in the huddle.

Cf. thread here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x152870

Cyd Zeigler Jr. of Outsports.com (gay sports website) on the Snickers ad

Edited on Thu Feb-08-07 02:04 AM by LoZoccolo
This ad is not remotely gay-bashing. The point of the reaction of the men was so ridiculous that it made the reaction of straight men to homosexual contact the butt of the joke, not the kiss itself.

http://outsports.com/entertainment/2007/0205snickers.ht...

(Describes among other things predominantly gay party that cheered the ad. Obviously fictional!)

[swimboy]

335. I am offended because I am oppressed, the fundies are offended because I'm not oppressed enough

That's the difference I see.

[Skittles]

403. there's a HUGE difference with the f***ing "relidious right"

when THEY are offended they want to make sure NO ONE ELSE SEES IT/HEARS IT/READS IT etc

[TheWraith]

157. Kicked and recommended.

I'm suddenly put in mind of a bit of dialog from the pilot episode of "Studio 60," as the network rep is demanding that the executive producer cut a sketch deemed offensive to Christians. The rep asks "What am I supposed to say to the fifty million people who are going to go out of their minds as soon as it airs?

The executive producer replies, "For starters, you can tell them that we average nine million households, so that's at least forty one million who are full of crap. And to the rest I would say that living where there's free speech means sometimes, you get offended."

It seems appropriate to DU at the moment. Being offended is an easy way to feel morally superior, and so many people hop on the bandwagon so often that it's almost a bad joke.

[Bluebear]

161. 'Being offended is an easy way to feel morally superior'

Yeah, us uppity gays feel so superior when we are offended.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

172. I am completely aware of the history of the word uppity.

And you are so busy not being offended that you could give a shit how many people you offend along the way.

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

187. Yeah, gee.

:crazy:

[sniffa]

197. i Love how he started this thread to appear genuine

but reading through many of his responses, it's quite obvious he never intended to be.

[Bluebear]

201. 500 posts over 5 years of membership and THIS is the topic to bring him back

:crazy:

[Mackay]

204. Yeah, I worked in the art field...

I saw how the word 'offended' was used to gut the NEA...

crazy me... How DARE I point that out!

But it is more convenient to attack me than to think about the consequences of allowing the word 'offended' to dictate our lives (as per the example I've shown).

BTW -- I find it wonderful you have enough time to make more than 1,000 posts. Sorry, if I haven't been as dedicated as yourself.

[omega minimo]

395. WOW First Time Ever! "Ignored" and "Deleted" duking it out!!!!!1111

:wow:


I can see your post, though. Looks like what yer sayin is:

"I saw how the word 'offended' was used to gut the NEA..."

TRANSLATION: "I saw the NEA gutted and the word "offended" blamed for the gutting............"



Your OP made it real clear that SOME people think that as long as THEY feel they are not affected or "offended" by something, they don't give a shit's goddamn what anyone else thinks/feels/experiences........

AKA "White/Male/Privilege/Obliviousness/SelfRighteousCluelessness/Callousness/Arrogance/etc."

[LostinVA]

328. I said that in another post -- telling, huh?

[Mackay]

202. Friend,

when someone makes a genuine argument, I listen.

Fact is, most of the posters here were merely disgruntled that I have an opinion other than their own. And therefore, they did not respond specifically to my post.

Why be genuine with someone who is too lazy to read through the OP? Or who is being purposely obtuse?

It is clear that most people just want to post a drive-by 'gotcha' comments... sort of like this one.

I GENUINELY care about the word 'offended' otherwise I wouldn't waste three hours of my time saying 'HEY... this is a DANGEROUS word! Let's look at some history.'

[sniffa]

206. i am not your friend

and you're stiLL disingenuous. don't worry though - assuming this thread does not get Locked, it'LL be kicked constantLy so that aLL of DU can continue to read how genuine you are.

VOILA!

[Mackay]

210. Oh... that would be great

Because a lot of them might agree with me on this issue. Please keep kicking it then.

[sniffa]

214. kick

[LostinVA]

175. NO kidding -- that's the point he was making

But somehow, I think you know that.

Blacks were called "uppity," women are called "shrill" or "emotional," gays are called "thin skinned," etc. The only difference is the word used, but the intent is the same: a verbal kick in the teeth, and a struggle to keep institutionalized bigotry the l;aw of the land.

Your oh-so enlightened thread, and your many nasty posts just prove this.

It is shameful this flamebait is allowed to stay.

[Mackay]

183. Because

all the nastiness is one-sided. :)

I'm just a mean person for pointing out that inconvenient bit of history with the NEA.

[ThomCat]

269. You can't really be claiming that your posts

haven't been nasty? :rofl:

Right, we're all picking on the poor little straight guy. (I am assuming you're a guy, but I admit that's just an assumption.)

[Maven]

271. ...which is totally impertinent to this topic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=158223&mesg_id=160502

Kick.

[ThomCat]

179. I think we all know the history of "uppity."

And I think it's a damned appropriate word to use in the current context. A whole lot of straight people claim that they have nothing against equality for GLBT people, and many claim to even support it, but still get their noses out of joint whenever we point out prejudices and bigotry. It's as if you'll all support our equality as long as we don't actualy want it.

[Mackay]

188. I support freedom of Religion

but I disagree with the Religious Right on their right to declare what is and is not offensive.

I will continue to support Gay Rights as well.

The right "to not be offended" is not applicable to ANY group in my opinion.

[ThomCat]

191. The flip side is that we do have a right to be offended

and we have a right to act when we're offended.

[Mackay]

196. Of Course!

I said in the OP,

Boycott Snickers...

I'm only pointing out that if other members of DU don't agree with something being 'offensive', it doesn't necessarily imply that they are homophobes, or racists, or whatever... it can be a legitimate difference of opinion.

Organize the boycott with or without them.

[ThomCat]

198. But if people are not offended

and if they are never offended, that's a good sign that they just don't care.

And if they take that next step and hold it against us that we're offended, then that's definitely a sign of homophobia.

[Mackay]

209. I don't hold it against anyone that they are offended...

n/t

[ThomCat]

224. Really, it doesn't appear that way.

It appears that you take great pleasure telling us that we shouldn't be offended, and picking at us for being offended. It appears that you're one of those devils advocates that likes to get in the way and be contrary just for the fun of it, with little or no concern what the issue is.
:shrug:

[Mackay]

233. The issue is in my post... it was the NEA

Most people don't read...

Why waste three hours on this to be contrarian?

[ThomCat]

242. And I'll say again

Comparing the NEA to prejudices and discrimination faced by an entire segment of the population is just rediculous. Get some perspective!
:eyes:

[treestar]

352. that's too pessimistic

especially your first sentence

No one is "holding it against us" that you're offended. I'm pointing out the uncessary misery this all-or-nothing view causes you.

Because I am more optimistic than you about gay rights' future does not mean I "don't care" or that I am "homophobic."

And if you're accusing liberals of being homophobic, the freepers are going to have you for breakfast.

[ThomCat]

390. You're naive

If you think people at here aren't homophobic then you're not looking around. The "support" LGBT people get from most people here is lip-service.

Yes, freepers are much, much worse. But if we use that excuse to say that the homophobia here is okay, then We've set a bar and decided how much homophobia is acceptable. Once we do that, what's preventing people here, by majority decision, from raising that bar and saying that MORE homophobia is acceptable?

And given that the majority of people here are straight people who don't pay attention to homophobia, aren't affected by it (except positively) and don't gain anything by fighting homophobia, what do we gain by letting straight people decide how much homophobia is acceptable?

The GLBT community keeps making advances because we keep fighting, and we don't let straight people tell us that some level of homophobia is acceptable.

[Skittles]

404. can you BELIEVE this sh** PT?

JAYSUS

[DaveJ]

165. Actually I'm offended that these companies get to advertise at all

Naturally, supply and demand states that a mom and pop business has no hope of advertising on TV, especially not during any football game. But that's okay, because it's capitalism. Screw mom and pop, and everyone else. The corporate fat cat is king. Hail him.

[Mackay]

168. Well, I would support that argument

I hate advertising.

[JackRiddler]

388. Now here's the issue!

Most of these channels - all 200 owned by some handful of interlocking companies - feature 24 hours of advertising of some kind or another, 24 hours of propaganda. You can pick literally hundreds of offensive points. Hundreds of illogical & stupid & aggressive sells of useless or destructive products. Also, hours and hours of offensive "content" (insofar as the "entertainment" segments are not just subtly disguised ads, as is increasingly the case -- shows about things to wear or cook or decorate your home with). Pretty much the entire day on Comedy Channel is offensive, often targeting otherwise oppressed groups for laughs, however ironically -- e.g., Family Guy?! (although I like most of that - the best show on TV is probably Robot Chicken on Adult Swim...)

And the DREAM of these corporations is to have us talking about the promotion for any particular one of their products, rather than seeing the entirety of the system. Day to day, we are the tentacles of the media/advertising brainstem.

Media access - some form of fairness doctrine - some way for everyone to get their program both on the air and in direct competition with the corporate offerings (listings would be a start - what the hell good is a listing that says "Local Public Access TV" without specifying what's on?)

This process has begun through the Web, obviously: the process of becoming the media. That's what has the possibility of bringing real power to the "powerless."

[ThomCat]

173. "If you cannot feel anger then you will not seek justice."

Insisting that nobody should ever get upset (without your permission or approval) is just another way of telling people to shut up and get under the bus.

[sniffa]

200. kick

[treestar]

253. Great point.

There is something seductive about being "the victim." This culture uses it to excess, no matter where on the political spectrum. Look at all those fundies who are offended that the Pledge should not include "under God."

[ThomCat]

257. That's a great way to discount everyone who really is a victim.

That's a wide brush you're using, and you've just found a wonderful way to excuse all forms of prejudice. Everyone who claims to be a victim is just a whiner. :eyes:

[bettyellen]

270. so true! all this whining about walking on eggshells and watching your mouth not to insult people

or actually having to think about content that exploits others and encourage violence towards them.
It's just such a tough row to hoe. :P

[donco6]

299. Wow. A lot of words to say, Get over it.

Why not just cut to the chase next time. It saves bandwidth.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

333. not being offended (especially at bigotry towards others) is expressing false courage.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

163. looks like you touched a raw nerve here

but thanks for your post.

[verse18]

164. Whenever I see posts about racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia and prejudice

It reminds me of this essay I read in college. You can substitute race with either gender and/or sexual orientation in most of these situations.


http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/%7Emcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

"I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group"

Peggy McIntosh

I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was "meant" to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools , and blank checks.


1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.

11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.

12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.

14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.

17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.

18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.

19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.


24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.

25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.

26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children's magazines featuring people of my race.

27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.

28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.

29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, eben if my colleagues disagree with me.

30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.

31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.

32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race.

34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.

37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.

38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.

39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.

40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.

43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.

44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race.

45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.

46. I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.

47. I can travel alone or with my spouse without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who deal with us.

48. I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household.

49. My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership.

50. I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.

[ThomCat]

195. I haven't seen that in years,

and it has been expanded since I last saw it. That's awesome. Everyone should read that and think about the lessons it has to offer.
:applause:

[Sapere aude]

205. If someone was borne a white male how should they feel about your post?

It seems to me that being borne a white male means you need to do a lot of mea
culpas right?

[ThomCat]

256. Absolutely.

If you can't recognize white privilage, and be humble about it, and make an honest effort to fight racism so that being treated well isn't a privilage anymore, then you're not much of a progressive.

If you take your privilage as a white person for granted and tell other people to "let it pass" then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[treestar]

255. Shouldn't the focus be on the positive side, of gaining all that for

the minorities? Just putting down people for being born white doesn't get you anywhere. In fact all that guilt gets you no where. Just into depression. And I can tell you about it, raised in the Catholic Church. (Oh, there I just went and offended some Catholics).

It doesn't do one minority person a bit of good, either. That guilt does not raise the chances of a single minority individual anywhere.

[ThomCat]

258. You SO missed the point.

That post isn't about putting down anybody white. It's about recognizing what all of us as white people gain from racism. And we do all gain from racism.

If you can't honestly accept racism, and where you stand in a racist society, then you aren't going to be able to do a damned thing to effectively help fight racism.

It's amazing how many white people claim they aren't racist but insist on being blind to racism and it's consequences. If you choose to be blind, then any support for civil rights is mostly lip-service.

[treestar]

261. I accept racism and that it exists

And that it has consequences and I vote accordingly.

What else is it demanded that I do? I try not to offend people of other races, and never intend to, but there are a few who are going to take it that way anyway.

Besides, not all white people are "privileged." There are some pretty poor white people out there.

Then I am a woman, I'm not going to complain that every man is "privileged." They were born that way, they can't help that either. Am I equal with a black man, then, one level of privilege away? I just find it very unattractive for people to be claiming to be born into a group that other groups owe.

It just achieves nothing.

[ThomCat]

264. Even the poorest white person benefits from racism.

Racism is a pretty all-pervasive force in society. Maybe that poor person doesn't benefit a lot. Poverty comes with a burden of prejudice of it's own. Middle class and rich white people definitely benefit more. But every white person benefits.

Even poor white people get all of the benefits on that list. That's the point of that list. All white people get benefits from racism just by being white.

And there is male privilage too. Every man benefits from sexism. There are lists similar to that one of all the benefits men get simply because they are not women.

And there is straight privilage too. Every straight person benefits from homophobia.

It doesn't matter whether or not anyone can help having those privilages. I'm a white man. I have them. Period. The least I can do is recognize that I have them. If I refuse to recognise those privilages then I can't work to make them available to everyone else. Privilages become invisible.

Recognizing privilages that come from prejudice does achieve a lot. It gives you the ability to see prejudice when it happens. It gives you the ability to empathize with the people who don't have those privilages. It gives you the ability to work with them and help them.

[donco6]

300. Why does being aware equate to guilt with you?

I don't feel the least guilty after reading that. And I'm a white male. I just feel more aware of the privilege I've been born with and the freedoms I have. It makes we want to change things for others, as best I can. I don't see guilt there.

[JackRiddler]

371. You know I can find that essay brilliant

Which it is, and agree with its message.

And still see no relation whatsoever to The Snickers Ad.

Or I could pull out a usual canard and say, "What? Are you suggesting there is a full 100 percent equivalence between the circumstances of black people and those of gay people?"

[suziedemocrat]

203. BRAVO!!! I couldn't agree more.

I'm tired of society having to walk on egg-shells because people have such thin skin.

Get over it!

The constitution is being ignored by the POTUS. People are dying senselessly in a war of choice. We are destroying the environment. People make fun of people. Sometimes people's feelings get hurt. So what? We've got REAL problems.

[Bluebear]

207. Be sure to let me know your pet issue so I can piss all over it.

Another "GET OVER IT" for us uppity gays.

[Sapere aude]

215. You just prove the OP's point time and time again.

Almost as if you can't help yourself. No one said uppity gays but you.

[ThomCat]

219. That was sure as hell the impression in that OP.

Are you another one of those people who thinks GLBT people should just shut up and get under the bus? Should we just wait for straight people like you to tell us what we're allowed to find offensive?

[Sapere aude]

226. Listen damn it! I have family members and many friends in the GLBT community.

I love them all very much and care about them very much.


Just because someone doesn't agree with you all the time doesn't make them anti gay! That is the very point we are trying to make!

Why the hell don't you see that?

[Bluebear]

228. Let me guess, they weren't offended by the commercial either.

Just to refresh what you were responding to:

"I'm tired of society having to walk on egg-shells because people have such thin skin.

Get over it!

The constitution is being ignored by the POTUS. People are dying senselessly in a war of choice. We are destroying the environment. People make fun of people. Sometimes people's feelings get hurt. So what? We've got REAL problems."

And YOU don't see that gay issues are being called "not a real problem" by this poster?

[Midlodemocrat]

236. Holy shit, dude. Lighten up.

:sarcasm:

God, this is getting so old.

I hope when my husband, the white, male, heterosexual with the really good job isn't walking on eggshells tonight. I think he forgot his slippers.

[Bluebear]

237. Those shells can get awfully sharp.

And once broken, how the hell can you make an omelette?

[Sapere aude]

243. He is not talking about gay issues you are. You are making more out of it than he is.

I think every one of us DUers is concerned and supportive of gay issues. We just don't see everything as gay bashing that you might. It is ok if I have a different opinion of the commercial than you do but I am not gay bashing or not supportive of your issues because of it. I'll walk right next to you anywhere to show my support of gay issues!

[Bluebear]

246. 'I think every one of us DUers is concerned and supportive of gay issues.'

Please. We were blamed for losing the 2004 Presidential election. We were warned that we would lose the 2006 midterms because of the new Jersey civil union ruling. And the thread you are in tells us to lighten up and stop making people walk on eggshells.

[ThomCat]

250. Damned right. I haven't seen that support, etiher.

I see a lot of people who insist they are on our side who can't be bothered to do a damned thing to ever stand with us, and never waste an opportunity to knock us down. With allies like that... :eyes:

We constantly have straight people telling us what we should do to fight for our rights in a way that won't offend them, and it almost always involves waiting just a little bit longer.

And shutting up.
x(

[Bluebear]

263. They lost interest.

[ThomCat]

265. I guess so.

We weren't good little gay people. We didn't shut up and take our cues from the straight people. :eyes:

[JackRiddler]

373. Really.

"We were blamed for losing the 2004 Presidential election. We were warned that we would lose the 2006 midterms because of the new Jersey civil union ruling."

And you're saying the people who did that are the ones who differ with your opinion about the message of The Snickers Ad? Which you know how?

[ThomCat]

248. Really? The support we usually get here at DU

from a lot of people is "Well, I'll stand over here and stay out of it. I'll think good thoughts. Good luck." And then we go it alone we get piled on by people who tell us we're out of line. Like you.

[Bluebear]

289. 'I'll think good thoughts. Good luck'

You ain't kiddin'.

[donco6]

302. Well, isn't that the point?

I mean - if we as gays, who have lived the life for 47 years, are telling you that something is very, very wrong here, why don't you think we'd be frustrated when people keep telling us, "No, you're just imagining things - go back to bed!"

No. No. No. I was not imagining things. No, on this you are very wrong.

[ThomCat]

234. If you act anti-gay

then I don't care if you support one or two people. I know lots of people who have gay relatives and use that as a credential to claim they're not homophobic, and most of them are. Most of them are insensitive, arrogant bigots and would swear to you that they're not.

I don't care who anyone's relatives are. If I don't see that support, and if I see a total lack of support, for GLBT issues then having a gay relative doesn't mean squat!

[Bluebear]

223. I know, I can't help myself. It's way out of control with me.

I have been told for days now how oversensitive the gay "community" has been here.

[bliss_eternal]

295. ....!

:hug:

[Mackay]

227. My Pet Issue

You have been pissing over my pet issue this whole thread. The gutting of the NEA. It doesn't mean squat to you... and you don't care why it happened. You haven't addressed it. You just want to be 'right'.

You said you were surprised that I posted on this issue because I only had 500 posts...

Well, that is because what you claim as a 'Gay Civil Right'... the right to 'not be offended' may just infringe other people's rights.

Ever think of that? No, probably not.

I don't think you even read the OP... otherwise you would understand why I'm posting.

[sniffa]

232. kick

[Midlodemocrat]

239. You mean all those members of the NEA who can't marry?

Can't go into the ICU with their partners? Them?

Because unless they're gay, having funding cut doesn't even friggin' come close.

[ThomCat]

240. If you weren't such an argumentative

PITA people might care what you're posting.

The NEA is important, but to compare that to the prejudices faced by an entire segment of society is just ludicrous.

[Maven]

241. Hmm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=158223&mesg_id=160502

Oh, and, kick.

[Bluebear]

244. Of course I understand. I am an artist and the gutting of the NEA is a crime.

You are the one who opined that the Snickers campaign was not as offensive as many you have seen, and in doing so, minimized something that has upset a lot of people here this week.

[bliss_eternal]

292. ...are you saying you are "offended"?

:shrug: I don't understand. I thought you said no one has a right to be offended.

How is it that YOUR pet issue is more worthy than others feelings and rights? Are you somehow saying you are more entitled than anyone else on DU?

[sniffa]

208. kick

don't worry - i won't waLk on egg sheLLs when you're concerned.

[Bluebear]

212. Environment, war dead = good cause. Gay civil rights = meh

[jonnyblitz]

222. OH I see what you are doing!! kicking all the asshole posts!

:rofl: :rofl: :thumbsup:

[ThomCat]

280. Everyone needs to see them.

:)

[Midlodemocrat]

213. How very progressive of you to shit all over the feelings of the GLBT community.

Kudos!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

229. It warms my cockles.

[Bluebear]

245. I can't even find mine right now.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

252. Did you check the jar by the entrance of GD?

[bettyellen]

268. ROFL *kick*

because you funny and i loove that about you!

[ThomCat]

217. That is incredibly shallow and insensitive.

So issues are only important if they're important to you? Prejudice isn't important?

If we had more progressive allies like you, why we might eventually make it to the 19th century! :eyes:

[Sapere aude]

221. Man you sure are collecting a ration of shit now!

[LostinVA]

235. Like equal civil rights for all American citizens?

Because, THAT'S what your "thin-skinned" comment helps aid and abet: institutionalized bigotry as shown through the ad campaign. That is a major REAL problem, and one you should advocate for EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE: equal rights for EVERYONE.

Hey, it's a good thing Dr. King didn't just think, "Hey, sometimes colored folk get their feelings hurt" when discussing Amos 'n Andy, etc.

How dare you be so flippant with my rights and my life.

For shame.

[donco6]

Wow! Thanks for the sensitivity, Suzie.

Next time I have a real problem, I'll let you know. Til then, guess I'll just talk to my partner of 11 years and let him know why he can't be on my insurance because people like you still don't get why equality is a life and death issue.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

358. homophobia propogatred in society is my problem

[DisgustedTX]

218. Thank you. Agree completely.

:)

[Bluebear]

225. Excellent!

The more of a consensus we can reach over whether gay people should have been offended, the better. :)

[ThomCat]

274. Exactly. And we gay people need to know

who the straight people are who think we should shut up.

[Little Wing]

220. kick

sniffa's foot must be getting sore, and I care :hug:

[Maven]

238. Kick.

[Stu DeBeouf]

230. Boring, Trite, Cliche....

These offend me...the rest is just personal taste.

[Burnsey_Koenig]

249. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to tell me what I consider

offensive. Nor do I have the right to tell you that you should be offended by the same things I am offended by.

It really is as simple as that.

As for that being the "same reasoning used by the Religious Right to ban artworks and I just don't buy into it." well good for you. I agree that "banning" something is generally uncalled for. But one can be offended about an issue without calling for it's banning. There is a huge difference between calling for a boycott because you disaprove of something a company has done and calling for a company's product to be banned.

You have the right to be offended by, or not offended by whatever you wish, but neither you nor anyone else has the right to question what someone else finds offensive. It really is as simple as that.

I am sorry if anyone made you feel less than progressive if you weren't bothered by the ad, but lets be honest, some of us found it offensive because of our own life experiences, and some of us didn't. But nobody but nobody has the right to tell me or anyone else to not be offended by something. You do have the right to not be offended yourself. I'm sorry if anyone gave you any other impression than that.

[Sirveri]

272. K&R First ever.

This needed to be said, I'm not going to tell people not to be offended. But at the same time, bitching on an internet blog won't fix the issue at hand. That issue is with how society looks at and feels about homosexuality. It's tied with religion and upbringings and media portrayals and fear of the unknown. The issue is not media's REACTION toward societies views. I am a service member on board a submarine, two other members of my division feel that their room mate who lives in the barracks with them is gay. And this for some reason FRIGHTENS them. I've tried probing them about why they care or give a shit, but what it ultimately boils down to is fear and lack of understanding. They don't understand how a male can have affection for another male in a sexual way, and that someone else does that scares them. I don't personally understand it, but maybe since I'm not barely out of high school and am completely secure in my own sexuality that has something to do with it.

Don't fight the commercial, fight for open mindedness and understanding and tolerance.

[ThomCat]

276. If we don't fight comercials that mock us

then we announce that it's okay to mock us. And then bullying always follows. You can't fight prejudice is you let people constantly put you down.

If you're straight you don't have a dog in the fight, so you might not see it. But we see it, and we feel a need to confront it.

If people can't understand that, at least don't get in the way.

[Sirveri]

281. Society already thinks it is OK to mock GLBT

So really, you've allready lost the battle against the mocking and are already at the beating stage. I remember hearing that someone who worked for the Washington Blade (or something like that) took a vacation to the Netherlands and was beaten for being gay. I'm sure there are plenty of other incidents that we've both heard of, hell one of them was made into a movie.

Point being, we're past the point of it being OK to mock, it has always been OK to mock. Since we're past that point how do we deal with the bullying and change society so that it is no longer acceptable to mock? Like I said, I don't see bitching online to the choir about a commercial as doing all that much. If anything is happening outside of this and is pounced on by the media it could cause an even more negative backlash towards gay rights. Then again it could also be a step in the right direction, one can't really know until after the fact.

Gay people need a PR firm, that or the next generation needs to be taught tolerance and understanding. It's kind of hard to teach what you don't have however, and the vast majority of America does NOT have that tolerance and understanding. I wish I could think of a way to fix that, but I'm not a sociologist though I do find the subject intellectually entertaining. Changing the belief of the majority of society is something that numerous groups have a eminent interest in. I suspect it all boils down to spending more on education.

[ThomCat]

282. I wish we were bitching to the choir.

There is no shortage of intollerance and bigotry here at DU.

And if we don't try to oppose the mocking, then we accept that it's okay. One of the lessons of the civil rights movments is that you have to challenge the way people address you and talk about you. If you can't do that, everything else fails. Silence = acceptance, and if we accept the mocking, we have no chance at all of stop the bullying and violence. We may not succeed, but we have to challenge the mocking.

[Sirveri]

283. I think I'm getting your point, sort of.

Probably the only hurdle I have left is why are people shouting on DU? It doesn't seem like it is really a productive venue to be venting in. Unless you're basically just trying to blow off steam. As for intollerance from what I can tell most people here don't want to kill gay people and believe that gay marriage rights should exist and that the GLBT community should be treated as equals. If you've seen differant then they probably aren't progressives and don't belong on DU. I guess what I'm asking is, wouldn't it be better to focus your attention towards active societal change rather than trying to convince similarily minded people to be offended about something which they have no stake in and will likely not do much to fight against?

[ThomCat]

287. There are many of us

who do focus on social change elsewhere. But that doesn't mean we're just blowing off steam here.

This is where our supposed allies are. If we can't convince our allies to take things seriously, and if we can't combat the bigotry here, then what hope do we have anywhere else?

[donco6]

296. It's beyond the commercial now, though.

I mean, here we are posting on a bulletin board comprised of people who have signed an agreement that they believe in the basic tenets of the Democratic Party - many of which deal with ending discrimination against minorities. And even here - a place that would appear at first blush to offer some sort of safe harbor against people who wish us ill - we still have to continually fight just to get people to think that MAYBE something that offends is just isn't funny. But you can see the response. Yeah, a lot of people get it, but just as in the outside world, those rational voices are drowned out by those who not only don't get it, but just fucking don't WANT to get it.

And that's just more than a little discouraging, IMO.

[BoneDaddy]

273. I happen to agree

I am offended by all those "offense" threads.

[Bluebear]

275. Another shock.

"I do think that there are many more pressing issues that affect people in a more direct way than gay rights."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=141950#149239

[ThomCat]

277. Geez. took me totally by surprise too.

Who would have thought? :eyes:

[BoneDaddy]

324. What about that didn't you understand

Do you think the average american thinks that gay rights is the most important issue in their life?

Talk about narcissistic self absorbtion.

I support gay rights on every level from the right to marry, have kids, keep their jobs, protection from violence, discrimination, and so on and because I think people overreacted about a ignorant commercial, I have become the bad guy.

You see this is the problem. Unless the non-gay community (and by the way I identify as bisexual in orientation but am in a committed heterosexual marriage) believes every single thing you believe, we are homophobic. Such rubbish.

These are the sacred cows of the left. You can't criticize gays, people of color, women or any other perceived persecuted group or you are labeled an enemy. What strength there is in victimhood and in our culture it is taken to the extreme.

[sniffa]

331. kick

:kick:

[BoneDaddy]

332. What an intelligent response

[sniffa]

337. kick

:kick:

[BoneDaddy]

349. You sniffa

are a coward. KICK back

[sniffa]

359. kick

[Name removed]

360. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sniffa]

363. kick

[BoneDaddy]

364. kick

[Maven]

278. Thought I'd say hi, just for

kicks.

[cboy4]

284. I always get a

kick out of your humor!

:kick:

[BoneDaddy]

325. Hi Harvey

:)

[donco6]

294. Wow. Really. Gee. Whoda Thunk it?

:eyes:

[BoneDaddy]

327. That's funny

how I can support gay rights to the hilt in every single facet except to disagree with the over the top "moral outrage" about a fucking commercial, and the gay community on DU thinks I am the enemy.

LOL. Keep alienating your support.

[ThomCat]

334. Clearly there's not much support there to alienate.

If people claim to be our allies, but stand by while we get mocked, and castigate US for being angry about having been mocked, then you're just enabling the bullies and bigotry.

If you'll support the small bigotries, how much are you really opposed to bigotry?

[BoneDaddy]

351. I just think

that the time and energy that has been invested in this singular, 30 second event is a waste of time and energy. You may disagree with me which is fine, I don't mind that, but don't label me a homophobe just because I think our energy should be spent in a more productive fashion, especially in this critical time.

You are as bad as the religious fundamentalists. Either I have to agree with you 100% or I am the enemy. This is what I find so hypocritical about many on the left, especially those who overidentify with their victimhood. They are so aware of the right's shortcomings (and they are accurate), yet so unaware of their own and make the same demands of others as the right wing whackos do.

[ThomCat]

368. I don't care whether or not you agree with me.

But when you take that next step and start undermining the people who really do oppose prejudice, then you're the problem, not the solution.

[BoneDaddy]

375. Over a snickers commercial?

I would rather spend my time fighting for gay marriage.

[ThomCat]

379. That's good.

But if you'll accept one homophobic commerical you'll accept more of them. And probably a lot of other homophobic statements, jokes, comments and messages too. How are we ever going to get equality if our allies look the other way every time we get mocked for being gay?

Some help just empty promises, less than nothing.

[BoneDaddy]

381. Ok. some common ground

Let's leave it at that. I will continue to fight for gay rights, I would just prefer to fight it at the core.

I work with crisis and perhaps am a bit inured to what a may think is not that big of a deal when I am working with a Sierra Leone war survivor who had been gang raped over the course of two months or a kid whose best friend was shot in front of them. So when I hear of things like this and all of the "outrage", I guess I put it in perspective and don't think it is as big of a deal as the other things I work with on a daily basis.

[BoneDaddy]

387. Sigh

Thom if I reacted to every slight that people had, I would be a social pariah. The problem people refuse to accept is that we can't change the world as much as we would like. I will not burn myself out over ever perceived slight. You can if you wish. I, however, will not.

[ThomCat]

391. I'm not the least bit worried that you might burn out.

I doubt you'll put enough effort into social justice issues to even get warm.

[BoneDaddy]

393. Thomcat

actually I started saying "go fuck yourself" then I decided that I really feel pity for you and your victimhood status. You are to be pitied. You get your power through your experience as a victim and then judge everyone by your sorry sick standard. grow up. Life aint fair and it owes nothing to you. So keep on pushing those tired lil memes that everyone needs to accept you.
get some therapy, grow up and realize that life owes you nothing.

[ThomCat]

396. I never claim life owes me anything.

None of us claim that. We get the rights we fight for. That's why I don't support the nay-sayers who think we should roll over and wait for all of our supposed allies to help us with the whatever they consider to be the "real fight."

And we know this, and we fight, because we have grown up.

Your post only shows that you just don't get it, and you won't.

[BoneDaddy]

397. So then you are on your own

Good luck

[Little Wing]

285. kick

since our friend sniffa seems to have lost focus I'll do it for him

[Exultant Democracy]

286. The people who are offended by "The Word 'Articulate'"

are tired of racism. Sorry that our being offended by racism makes you tired. You must have found MLK exhausting.

[marmar]

288. If something offends or demeans any group of peope, then it offends me.

And even if you're not personally offended by something, I think it's pretty arrogant for you to say that you're tired of people who are offended by A, B or C. If people are offended by something that I might not be right off the bat, I'm going to try to understand why, not go into a fit of sanctimony.

[treestar]

301. Does this apply to the Muslims who were offended about

what the Pope said?

When I see this argument that no one should tell someone else they should not be offended, I seem to recall no one was standing up for their right to be offended at that time.

But I could have missed it.

I take it you are agree that if the Muslims in question say they were offended, then what the Pope said was indeed offensive?

[marmar]

315. "if the Muslims in question say they were offended, then what the Pope said was indeed offensive?"

As a matter of fact, yes.

[Jamastiene]

291. Are you pleased with this shitstorm you started?

That is all. I just want to know if you are patting yourself on the back or if there is some influence that is atta-boying you on here.

There does seem to be a HUGE ideological split on DU. If any human being of any oppressed group or category dares say they are offended, that person gets told what they should and should not be offended by. I wonder just how far it is going to go before some of you realize that you will find yourself literally bashing the hell out of some gay guy who happened to walk down the same side of the street as you one day and then have the audacity to say you are not homophobic. Where do you draw the line? At what point is enough enough? I sincerely want to know. Where is your personal line on that issue? You have a right your opinion by all means, but I want to know if you need to be on my ignore list or not. I want to be clear about that. Where do you draw the line? That is the question.

[donco6]

293. I asked him and didn't get an answer either.

I mean, isn't he saying that everyone who is offended is equally offset by those who do not wish to be offended. Therefore, there is no reason for anyone, anywhere to ever be offended. And yet, we know (you and I) that there is a line that can be crossed, at which point all thinking people should say, "Enough!" But he doesn't seem to think so. That's just odd, don't you think?

[Jamastiene]

297. Exaclty, it's one thing if there is a distinct line drawn somewhere

in the sand, but there is not. Next thing you know, one of us (you or me) is taking more abuse (or fighting for our lives) because no one thought it would go that far, yet it did. How far would some of these people go before they'd realize that enough is enough? Would they realize it after they killed one of us or would they see a stopping point before that? I mean if we are expected to just take the abuse at this level, how far does it need to go before we can complain according to their permission rules? And this does seem to be a sort of permission not granted argument here. Uhm, can I whimper when I am being beaten or should I roll with the punches literally? And that is how far I believe it will go. If WE (you and I and others who share our concerns in life) don't draw that line in the sand, it'll never get drawn.

[donco6]

298. And to top it off, it already HAS happened.

How many killings does it take for people to realize that it's not hypersensitivity that drives us to anger about these portrayals? It's flat out self-preservation. And more than "self" - it's not wanting any of our kind to have to go through the things we've gone through - the taunting, bullying, being beaten after school, chased down the streets, threatened, catcalled. No one deserves that - no one. And to think that someone would be offended, if you will, of being called on their insensitivity - well, that just tells me a lot about a person's comprehension of what a liberal is all about.

[omega minimo]

303. douchebag

[Bluebear]

304. ...

:spray:

[LostinVA]

321. I second that

And --

hahahahhahahhahaha

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

323. ...

:spray:

:thumbsup:

OMFG! We finally found something we both agree on.

[dogday]

338. Sorry you lose the discussion completely when

1. you start calling someone a name

and

2. When the name you use is offensive to women ( what we can't be offended?)

[omega minimo]

392. i agree with you, dogday

it's a thing. use the search function.

[dogday]

399. I have and have seen threads where

females are offended by such a thing.. It isn't the thing-it is what the thing is used for, oh yes dirty vaginas, right? Shit is a thing too, but I don't call people shit..


on edit: When you call someone a thing, it then becomes a name.. For example asshole and dickhead are just a few that come to mind....

[JVS]

401. the joke is that omega minimo was the one offended by the word "douchebag"

she started that thread and that's why she said to use the search function

[Sapphire Blue]

312. "Don't pretend that by using the words 'offended' and 'offensive', your opinion...

... has any more weight than anyone else's."

That about sums it up regarding your OP and your opinion.

[ThomCat]

313. That's the truth.

:)

[westerebus]

316. Is this another

tale about jesus on a jet ski being chased by a giant snickers bar wearing a white sheet with a parrot that speaks in tongues repeating uppity, uppity, and away? Sorry, not sure if that was offensive enough.:sarcasm: :dilemma:

[NuttyFluffers]

317. btw, i really loved "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano. off-topic personal story time:

i have a significant segment of my family that was deeply offended by "Piss Christ" and because of it were rather ambivalent to the gutting of the NEA. i myself found "Piss Christ" to be a profoundly beautiful, and even religious, experience of art. needless to say there were heated discussions.

i was attempted to be brow beaten into accepting that the work of art was against the religion i was raised in, and disrespectful and harmful to the tradition they too were raised in. i could see their point of view, even if i didn't share it. but that work of art had a vastly and far more positive effect on me. such arresting pieces of work are what wake me up into the experience of being human. i knew we could never agree, but i insisted that they refuse to demonize me along with their opinion of that piece of art.

i wanted them to know that this held great meaning for me, and rejecting me and my experience out of hand is hurtful. they were offended by something's existence. i was moved by the same thing's existence. i was hurt (not offended really, they have a right to an opinion naturally) that my experience was not considered valid. i was validating their offended sensibilities (one could say they were hurt here), but i was feeling it was a one-way street; they were not validating my experience. and compounding this was that this attitude was not just dismissal but outright abuse, as if i in turn have embodied the offensive thing in the first place.

in time, and through less heated argumentation, the acceptance of each other has become a two-way street. it is in times of great stress, often when angry and offended, when we find it most critical to find validation, love, and acceptance. but it is also at this stage when we are least apt to find it within ourselves to offer the same to the other. this is the great flaw of losing one's head in an emotional crisis. through this experience i have learned we lose an opportunity to really communicate with one another for we are far too embroiled in our current experience. i fail the lesson often, but i try to now step back a bit during heated moments and check to make sure if i am overlooking someone's need to be validated. more often than not, i find in my experience, that people are speaking *at* each other -- and in a general sense agreeing as well -- but seeking what would be freely given if one only took a deep breath and tried to listen.

k, story time over! :D you may resume your flame war. :hi:

[Guaranteed]

318. I never put people on ignore.

But I have had way, way more than enough of the same five people showing up in every goddamned thread related to being offended to anything and bullying everyone else. It's been going on for weeks now. This shit needs to stop.

Just nothing but nastiness and drama.

[sniffa]

342. since you're not going to see this

i might as weLL start a sub thread with my feLLow buLLies.

aLL this time, i thought i was going after buLLies, but it turns out i've been picking on poor, innocent, in no way homophobic, progressive, DUers.

[ThomCat]

344. Oh yes, it's always the people who complain about bullying

who are the real bullies. Didn't you get that memo? :eyes:

[jonnyblitz]

345. yeah, folks who get mocked and ridiculed then stick up for

themselves are bullies, didn't you know that Sniffa? I see where the "looney" comes from...jesus christ. :crazy: :crazy:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

357. lol!

[ThomCat]

343. Well, you've clearly put at least one person on ignore.

If you think it's okay to mock gay people, and then okay to tell gay people to just get over it, fine. Be that way. But don't pretend that you're some wonderful progressive.

It's amazing how many so called progressives only want progress for people they like. :eyes:

[Name removed]

347. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

386. You know, the really funny thing is that I don't necessarily

disagree with the ideas being represented by these people. But the behavior is outrageous. I didn't see one reasoned argument in this whole thread- it's nothing but social manipulation techniques and distortions. Dramatics.

If you're interested in learning how to honestly persuade someone to your side of an argument, take a look at dsc's thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=142420#142940

Until then, over and out.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

322. you have a right to not be personally offended. you dont have a right to tell another group

what they can and cannot be offended about.

[w4rma]

329. Yeah! Sit down, shut up and take your "offending" insults! Weak and wimpy. (nt)

[The Witch]

339. I honestly think that it's all about listening to each other.

The purpose of telling someone you're offended is really to do just that: to make a person aware of your feelings. The more people know, the more informed their choices are. All we can do in the world is to learn more and make better choices. Saying you're offended may or may not cause someone to change their choices, but it will inform them about something they may not have known before - your feelings. And knowledge is a good thing.

[treestar]

355. This is true on a personal level

But the more things you are offended by the fewer people you can interact with.

I could see being offended by "oh, get over it," but no one is doing that here.

[Puglover]

340. This is so easy.

You and the others like you are beating this dead horse by intellectualizing and arguing and name calling simply because your massive egos render you incapable of being gracious and simply admitting that someone might be offended by a fucking homophobic Snicker commercial. Jesus.


Pathetic.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

341. so wait: you are being offended by others people offended feelings.

way to go!

[swag]

346. Very nice conclusion.

"Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity." - Marshall McLuhan, 1967

[Smarmie Doofus]

348. Ok... how about "harmful", "destructive"?

>>>>"Don't pretend that by using the words 'offended' and 'offensive', your opinion has any more weight than anyone else's.">>>>

I'm fifty three years old. It's pretty hard to 'offend' me. I didn't feel personally 'offended' by the ad . But I worry about about the homophobia endemic in the society and the very real injury it does to young people and... dare I say it... *children*.

OK, they might actually be *gay* young people and *gay* children but they are still CHILDREN. Don't you agree?

The "get over it" argument doesn't really speak to the issue, far as I'm concerned. The issue is making life better ( more humane, more democratic, more tolerant) for the next generation.

I'm in favor of that; sounds like you're not.

[sniffa]

350. thank you

spot on.

[treestar]

353. Nobody here says "get over it" but I know you will run into that

with non-liberals.

But they have a point. How do you seriously argue it is that black and white? Also, keep the eye on the prize. Arguing with a non-liberal about gay marriage is tiring enough if you stay on the topic. If you start them on these little things, they will just point the finger and laugh as hard as they can and dismiss you as one of the extreme liberals they are always hearing about. So it not only gets nowhere, it is counter-productive.

To have gay marriage will take a lot of work as it is, right? Attacking people only makes them retreat further away from your position, and at least a reasonable majority has to be convinced. Attacking them over beating a gay pereson is justifiable, and anyone supporting that is a clear KKK member, but attacking them over laughing at a commerical creates a much larger group that is now against you.

[Smarmie Doofus]

367. There is a getoverit-ism tone to some, not all, of the ....

>>>If you start them on these little things, they will just point the finger and laugh as hard as they can and dismiss you as one of the extreme liberals they are always hearing about. So it not only gets nowhere, it is counter-productive.>>>>

.... posts above. (No, I haven't followed the discussion all the way thru). I'm not implying it's true of anything you've written


"little things": Actually, in my view, it's the other way around. The 'big thing' is the inaccurate ideas the larger society has about the big H. The 'little' things ( relatively speaking, of course) are the consequences ( unjust laws, etc) that flow from the former.

Although, tactically speaking, you may have a point. Or not. Hard to say. Can't we promote marriage equality and point out and *complain* about destructive depictions in the culture at the same time? I don't see how one really precludes the other. I see them as more interrelated than separate.

>>>attacking them over laughing at a commercial creates a much larger group that is now against you.>>>>

I don't like 'attacking' anyone ( you are right; it's counterproductive) but I'm not sure your use of the word is really fair to those who *object* to the ad. For the most part, seems to me, they object on reasonable grounds. And if people are angry about the folks who "laughed" they've got it seriously wrong, in my view. It's the people who conceived the ad who should be held to account.

[Bluebear]

385. 'Nobody here says "get over it"' HAHAHAHAHA

kick

[La Lioness Priyanka]

366. very true. i am outraged and angered because of the effect of this add on society.

[Dastard Stepchild]

372. I see where you are going with this, but let me interject...

Snickers marketing employees are not private artists. They, to best of my understanding, hone their campaigns to have mass appeal to public viewership. They finely craft each second of a commercial showing to their perceived understandings of public interest, public sensibilities and public taste. So when THEY get that wrong, and they offend rather than entertain, I believe they are more open to criticism and pressure. Unlike, say, Mapplethorpe, who is creating private art for public consumption.

I don't really have the time it takes to tease out the nuances of what I am saying, but do you get where I am going with this?
Private artists do create for the public, but they also create for themselves, and pretty much only answer to themselves.
Marketing departments have a much different aim, and when they mess up, they are more subject to correction by the people they offend - in part because they are trying to please a broad range of people and this offense does not benefit them. So, there is a complaint path that can be followed for the products of marketing. People have recourse if something bothers them. The ability to take action makes it more likely that people will discuss something, because there is opportunity to move beyond talking and into action. Marketing departments, again to the best of my knowledge, find themselves far more accountable to public opinion than private artists.

[MsUnderstood]

376. HOLD THE PHONE

The snickers ad was homophobic?

This is the superbowl add where to homophobic men accidently kissed so they had to do something MANLY to prove their sexuality?

Hmm funny my superbowl friends and I (all gay) laughed uproariously AT these straight men.

It was not a comment of HOMOPHOBIA it was a comment ABOUT Homophobia.

[sniffa]

378. i'm gLad someone finaLLy pointed this out

i can't beLieve this has gone on for five days now, and not one poster pointed out that the thread is about homophobia. you're aLso the first gay person, or friend/neighbor of a gay person who feeLs this way.

[ruiner4u]

382. *slaps head* ahh hell, im going to rehash!!!!!!

Since ive seen the same point being brought up again and again and again..................
Im going to bring back my point!!! WHOO HOO...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x144269#145320


Oh yeah, and kick <for sniffa>

[Maven]

384. TY

Even Jon Stewart saw the distinction.

[Bluebear]

389. You should email Judy Shepard and tell her

So she is not confused about this anymore.

[DuaneBidoux]

380. I pretty much agree with you (yea, I know, here it comes...)

I believe every gay and lesbian (or anyone else for that matter) had every right to be offended by the Snickers ad--and I believe they have every right to take any lawful action they wish to protest the ad. I also feel that those who did not find it offensive should not be subject to personal scathing ad homonym attacks. I was not offended, even though I have had many gay and lesbian friends over many years (and some of them most certainly were offended).

But I shouldn't be attacked if I say I didn't find it offensive. I also don't believe that discomfort with seeing two men or two women kiss is inherently homophobic (although it may well be a fairly strong symptom). My grandmother, who came from a much different era, was very uncomfortable with any pda, including and especially two heterosexuals kissing in public. I don't think she was hetero-phobic (she did have three children) but in that day and age that kind of display of any kind of sexual proclivities was simply not accepted. Thank God that has changed.

I can not legitimately know what truly offends anyone else and I don't believe anyone else can truly know what offends me. But we are not a society that makes laws based on what is offensive, at least we shouldn't be, in my opinion. I have no doubt that certain kinds of art works and movies truly offend cultural conservatives--and trust me that they do feel oppressed. If you remember what the country was really like in the 40s with sexuality (their dream era) you will know they feel secular culture has attacked their way of life. Personally I'm glad that way of life is gone, along with the evils, such as segregation, that they don't recognize but that progressives do.

[DuaneBidoux]

383. I suppose this lady, since she is a lady, and women are oppressed at a right to demand this action..

Must watch a salon ad.

<http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/?last_story=/mwt/broadsheet/2007/02/08/hoohaa/>

[gulliver]

394. People who are easily offended are un-Christian.

Wasn't that what the whole "turn the other cheek" thing was about. If you don't like what someone says, accept it. Be willing to accept even more.

Taking offense also violates the Talion Law. If you don't like what someone says, say something offensive back. Have some guts.

Saying "I am offended" is censorship talk. Censors can kiss my a**.

(The a** is "ass".)

[Sterling]

398. Snickers ad no, Democrat? That is bullshit

Not so much offended by it but rather amazed how childish and petty Repubs can be. To the point they make themselves sound like dumb ass illiterates for not knowing how to pronounce the name of the oppositions political party.

[cgrindley]

400. Yay!

People here get offended and shrill pretty easily, and a lot of debates get sidelined into really idiotic ad hominem and, especially regarding some issues such as Gardasil, a lot of people seem to think that a debate can be won by presenting a few irrational appeals to sympathy based on personal experience, rather than on what would be best for the nation as a whole.

I think that rational politics, expedient politics, and politics that contribute and support progressive issues must be argued and presented with a cold, cold heart. The other side can be emotional--they're the ones who are best are trotting out the flag, trotting out the bible, trotting out the patriarchal family. Our side should use its brains, not its emotions.

Personally speaking, I hate Edwards for making his money as a personal injury lawyer and building that stupid house because both things detract from his message.

I could care less about any TV commercial. I love the word "douchebag". Mapplethorpe is okay, much much much better than the profoundly untalented Liebovitz, but nowhere near in the same league as Parks or Karsh.

[Bluebear]

405. People here get offended and shrill pretty easily, do they?

Yeah especially when YOU say stupid stuff like: "I'm a straight man and the only way I'd have gay sex is if I was being raped, and I'd rather die than be raped."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=148503&mesg_id=148655